Re: [PATCH 11/12] builtin/show-ref: add new mode to check for reference existence
- From
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
- Date
- Oct 25, 2023, 11:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ZTkBIVODFzX8Jr5P@tanuki>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPig+cRTOMie0rUf=Mhbo9e2EXf-_2kQyMeqpB9OCRB1MZZ1rw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 05:01:55PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
Show 53 quoted lines
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:11 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote: > > While we have multiple ways to show the value of a given reference, we > > do not have any way to check whether a reference exists at all. While > > commands like git-rev-parse(1) or git-show-ref(1) can be used to check > > for reference existence in case the reference resolves to something > > sane, neither of them can be used to check for existence in some other > > scenarios where the reference does not resolve cleanly: > > > > - References which have an invalid name cannot be resolved. > > > > - References to nonexistent objects cannot be resolved. > > > > - Dangling symrefs can be resolved via git-symbolic-ref(1), but this > > requires the caller to special case existence checks depending on > > whteher or not a reference is symbolic or direct. > > s/whteher/whether/ > > > Furthermore, git-rev-list(1) and other commands do not let the caller > > distinguish easily between an actually missing reference and a generic > > error. > > > > Taken together, this gseems like sufficient motivation to introduce a > > s/gseems/seems/ > > > separate plumbing command to explicitly check for the existence of a > > reference without trying to resolve its contents. > > > > This new command comes in the form of `git show-ref --exists`. This > > new mode will exit successfully when the reference exists, with a > > specific error code of 2 when it does not exist, or with 1 when there > > has been a generic error. > > > > Note that the only way to properly implement this command is by using > > the internal `refs_read_raw_ref()` function. While the public function > > `refs_resolve_ref_unsafe()` can be made to behave in the same way by > > passing various flags, it does not provide any way to obtain the errno > > with which the reference backend failed when reading the reference. As > > such, it becomes impossible for us to distinguish generic errors from > > the explicit case where the reference wasn't found. > > > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> > > --- > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-show-ref.txt b/Documentation/git-show-ref.txt > > @@ -65,6 +70,12 @@ OPTIONS > > +--exists:: > > + > > + Check whether the given reference exists. Returns an error code of 0 if > > We probably want to call this "exit code" rather than "error code" > since the latter is unnecessarily scary sounding for the success case > (when the ref does exit).
I was trying to stick to the preexisting style of "error code" in this manual page. But I think I agree with your argument that we also call it an error code in the successful case, which is misleading.
Show 6 quoted lines
> > + it does, 2 if it is missing, and 128 in case looking up the reference > > + failed with an error other than the reference being missing. > > The commit message says it returns 1 for a generic error, but this > inconsistently says it returns 128 for that case. The actual > implementation returns 1.
Good catch, fixed.
Show 27 quoted lines
> > diff --git a/builtin/show-ref.c b/builtin/show-ref.c
> > @@ -214,6 +215,41 @@ static int cmd_show_ref__patterns(const struct patterns_options *opts,
> > +static int cmd_show_ref__exists(const char **refs)
> > +{
> > + struct strbuf unused_referent = STRBUF_INIT;
> > + struct object_id unused_oid;
> > + unsigned int unused_type;
> > + int failure_errno = 0;
> > + const char *ref;
> > + int ret = 1;
> > +
> > + if (!refs || !*refs)
> > + die("--exists requires a reference");
> > + ref = *refs++;
> > + if (*refs)
> > + die("--exists requires exactly one reference");
> > +
> > + if (refs_read_raw_ref(get_main_ref_store(the_repository), ref,
> > + &unused_oid, &unused_referent, &unused_type,
> > + &failure_errno)) {
> > + if (failure_errno == ENOENT) {
> > + error(_("reference does not exist"));
>
> The documentation doesn't mention this printing any output, and indeed
> one would intuitively expect a boolean-like operation to not produce
> any printed output since its exit code indicates the result (except,
> of course, in the case of a real error).I'm inclined to leave this as-is. While the exit code should be sufficient, I think it's rather easy to wonder whether it actually did anything at all and why it failed in more interactive use cases. Not that I think these will necessarily exist.
I also don't think it's going to hurt to print this error. If it ever does start to become a problem we might end up honoring the "--quiet" flag to squelch this case.
Show 8 quoted lines
> > + ret = 2;
> > + } else {
> > + error(_("failed to look up reference: %s"), strerror(failure_errno));
>
> Or use error_errno():
>
> errno = failure_errno;
> error_errno(_("failed to look up reference: %s"));Ah, good suggestion.
Show 28 quoted lines
> > + }
> > +
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = 0;
> > +
> > +out:
> > + strbuf_release(&unused_referent);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
>
> It's a bit odd having `ret` be 1 at the outset rather than 0, thus
> making the logic a bit more difficult to reason about. I would have
> expected it to be organized like this:
>
> int ret = 0;
> if (refs_read_raw_ref(...)) {
> if (failure_errno == ENOENT) {
> ret = 2;
> } else {
> ret = 1;
> errno = failure_errno;
> error_errno(_("failed to look up reference: %s"));
> }
> }
> strbuf_release(...);
> return ret;Fair enough. I've seen both styles used in our codebase, but ultimately don't care much which of either we use here. Will adapt.
Show 13 quoted lines
> > @@ -272,13 +309,15 @@ int cmd_show_ref(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > + if ((!!exclude_existing_opts.enabled + !!verify + !!exists) > 1)
> > + die(_("only one of --exclude-existing, --exists or --verify can be given"));
>
> When reviewing an earlier patch in this series, I forgot to mention
> that we can simplify the life of translators by using placeholders:
>
> die(_("options '%s', '%s' or '%s' cannot be used together"),
> "--exclude-existing", "--exists", "--verify");
>
> which ensures that they don't translate the literal option names, and
> makes it possible to reuse the translated message in multiple
> locations (since it doesn't mention hard-coded option names).Done.
Thanks for your review, highly appreciated! I'll wait until tomorrow for additional feedback and then send out v2.
Patrick